Evaluation of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive
Secondary data: literature review of EESC work
Download 0.85 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- EESC evaluated the Commissions Farm to Fork strategy, concluding that it does not deliver sufficiently on economic, environmental and socio-cultural sustainability.
- The EESC believes that much more consistency and coordination across EU policies are needed: an adequate CAP budget is essential to cover the additional demands on European family farmers.
- The impact on drop production induced by land conversion into organic farming has to be assessed
Secondary data: literature review of EESC workThe EESC believes in the need for a comprehensive and sustainable EU agro-food policy (NAT/711). In this regard, the Committee has recently expressed its views on the Farm to Fork and 2030 Biodiversity Strategies within the framework of the Commission's European Green Deal, commenting on them also in relation to trade and supply chains. In NAT/787, EESC evaluated the Commission's Farm to Fork strategy, concluding that it does not deliver sufficiently on economic, environmental and socio-cultural sustainability. The supply-chain dynamics of agro-food products should thus be reshaped to obtain lasting improvements for producers, processors and retailers, using all available policy instruments (including the new CAP). Fair food prices (reflecting the true cost of production for the environment and society) should be central to a truly sustainable EU food policy. Moreover, the Committee urges the EU to ensure true reciprocity of standards in preferential trade agreements. The option of a European Food Policy Council is also put forward. In NAT/786, the EESC welcomes the Commission's efforts to develop a Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 in the European Green Deal framework, while pointing out that action to protect remaining natural resources needs to be significantly increased in the EU. The EESC regrets that the EU's new financial plan for 2021-2027 contains no sign of full, effective, consistent integration of biodiversity. Moreover, the Committee stresses that farmers and forest owners cannot be expected to bear the cost of protecting biodiversity. Rather, providing this "public good and value" should become a useful source of income for them. In NAT/791, the EESC specifically reflects on the compatibility of EU trade with the European Green Deal. The Committee welcomes the ambition of the EGD and of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies. At the same time, these strategies cannot erode the viability and competitiveness of EU farming and the agro-food sector through the imposition of higher costs and standards, which competitors are not willing to adopt and implement. Moreover, in the light of the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis, a fair and rules-based EU single market and international trade are essential to drive economic recovery. The EESC thus proposes that all future EU trade deals incorporate the European green strategies as global standards on sustainability. It is widely recognised that trade in agriculture plays a core role in achieving the SDGs (see also REX/486). In addition, the EESC requests that the impact of the Green Deal F2F and Biodiversity Strategies on EU trade agreements and the farming sector undergo a detailed impact assessment. The EESC believes that much more consistency and coordination across EU policies are needed: an adequate CAP budget is essential to cover the additional demands on European family farmers. Additionally, research must be intensified to better define the term "organic" and to assess the real net contribution of organic farming to global sustainability, including biodiversity. The impact on drop production induced by land conversion into organic farming has to be assessed. In line with the position illustrated above, in NAT/793 the EESC opposes the proposed (Commission) recognition of Ukrainian seed as equivalent to cereal seed harvested, produced and controlled in the European Union. Indeed, the adoption of the legislative proposal should be conditional on guarantees of compliance with European health and environmental requirements and the absence of unfair competition. Ukrainian producers have access to certain substances (both in active weed control and pest protection) that are banned in the European Union. These divergences lead to a distortion of competition and would result in products that do not comply with EU standards being able to enter the territory of the European Union. Safeguarding food safety is also a priority for the Committee, as stated in NAT/732. In this opinion, the EESC addresses transparency in scientific assessments and governance of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), fully supporting Commission's initiative aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the food supply chain monitoring system. The Committee advocates maximising the Agency's risk analysis capacities for greater cooperation with Member States to help give the public, the media and civil society as a whole a better perception of reliability and safety. In NAT/763, EESC also explored the role of agro-ecology and short chains to respond to food challenges. While acknowledging that this alternative model is not suitable for all farms, and that it does not replace the need for food that is not locally produced, the EESC sees it as fundamental to sustainable development. Indeed, innovative systems that connect consumers and producers together, such as CSA (community-supported agriculture) and other "basket" schemes, are growing across Europe, with the support of regional and local authorities. Many of these producers practise organic farming or apply other environment-friendly methods that are not covered by a label. Short-chain sales offer a real opportunity for small structures to build up the added value and profitability of farms. Download 0.85 Mb. Share with your friends:
|